Subcommittee Reviews NSF’s FY 2014 Budget Request

(Washington, DC) – Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research held a hearing to review the Administration’s fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget request for the National Science Foundation (NSF).  Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Cora Marrett, Acting Director of NSF, and Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman of the National Science Board.

Ranking Member of the Research Subcommittee, Dan Lipinski (D-IL) said in his opening statement, “I understand that America faces a serious debt threat. If we do not do anything to rein-in our long-term debt, our economic future will be imperiled.  Solving this problem will require some budget cuts.  But I hope that going forward we can make these cuts in a smart way that addresses the various near-term and long-term challenges that our nation faces.  In doing this, we will have to set priorities.  Sometimes priority-setting means increasing investments in areas that deliver real returns for taxpayers by improving our quality of life, protecting our population from natural and man-made threats, and ensuring our economic competitiveness.  Therefore, I am pleased that the Administration’s FY14 budget request continues to emphasize science, innovation, and STEM education generally, and the National Science Foundation in particular.” 

Dr. Marrett said of NSF, “For more than six decades the National Science Foundation has had a profound impact on our nation’s innovation ecosystem by funding transformative research that has pushed forward the frontiers of scientific knowledge. As the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic research and education in all fields of science and engineering, NSF empowers discoveries across a broad spectrum of scientific inquiry. Each year, NSF awards thousands of grants that engage the talents of researchers, postdoctoral fellows, trainees, teachers and students. Collectively, NSF-funded researchers have won more than 200 Nobel Prizes for their work in the fields of chemistry, economics, physics and physiology and medicine.”

Witnesses and Democratic Members discussed a number of issues from STEM education to the I-Corps program.  They also emphasized the importance of NSF’s merit review grant award process and stressed the value of federal investments in the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences.  Mr. Lipinski referenced language in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 that addressed many, if not all of the concerns expressed by the Majority about NSF’s merit review process. 

Dr. Arvizu said, “The National Science Board and NSF’s merit review policies, which are lauded and emulated internationally, recognize that it is crucial to be open to receive the best scientific ideas, to have those ideas judged by experts who can assess the soundness and promise of what is proposed, and to make decisions based on potential scientific and societal value. To cut whole classes of science from consideration can have significant unanticipated consequences. For example, when NSF funded Elinor Ostrom’s work on common property, it was not anticipated that her findings would challenge the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be regulated or that this Political Scientist would win the Nobel Prize in Economics.”   

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA) stressed the importance of making investments in light of today’s budget environment.  He said, “Throughout the history of the National Science Foundation, we see the discoveries that have spurred innovation and propelled our economy and our science forward. For example, look at advanced manufacturing.  It was NSF funded research that produced one of the first 3-D printers. We do have the resources to make strategic investments, but it can’t just be a discussion of cutting versus raising revenue. It also has to be a discussion of where can we get the best return on our investment.”